1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to Bicycle Accessories, and more specifically to an improved hydration, nutrition, and pack apparatus.
2. Prior Art
Methods and apparatus to aid the cyclist in hydration, nutrition, and accessory storage are numerous, since these needs were essentially born in conjunction with the invention of the bicycle. The most commonly encountered solutions to satisfying these needs today are; the bicycle mounted bottle cage and bottle, the collapsible bladder reservoir and tube hydration backpack with auxiliary storage compartments worn by the cyclist, saddle mounted bags/containers, and cycling garments adapted with pockets.
The most similar prior art to the invention herein disclosed are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,062,591 to Runkel (1991) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,953,135 to Litton et al (2005). These “hands free” embodiments can be advantageous for cyclists who are normally in a forward and low tucked position, for example, competitive road or cycle-cross cyclists while in the lower drops of the handlebar, or time trialist and tri-athletes using aero-bars. There are disadvantages, however, that arise for the majority of cyclists who prefer to maintain a more neutral and upright body position while riding. For example, the physical manipulation required of a typical recreational cyclist, mountain cyclist, touring cyclist, or commuter cyclist to bend down and forward to reach with their mouth for a bite valve that is in a fixed location approximately above the handle bars and at seat level causes the cyclist to assume a posture that exceeds some people's flexibility range and can be awkward for even well conditioned athletes to assume while exerting themselves cycling. Furthermore, and especially in the case of Mountain Cycling, the terrain over which one is riding is often uneven, and having a rigidly mounted drink tube projecting into ones mouth while engaging uneven terrain may result in unexpected loss of control over the bite valve, or worse, in personal injury from the unexpected motion of the tube and valve. Commercialization of a Litton type apparatus (NeverReach™) has been specifically targeted to the tri-athlete market, demonstrating the practical limitations of this approach.
There are several other prior art variations of bicycle mounted hydration systems employing a flexible tube that enables the rider to access the hydration fluid without having to remove or otherwise directly handle a fluid reservoir that is attached to a bicycle frame. U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,997 B1 to Smerdon, Jr. (2002) provides a frame mounted reservoir connected to a flexible hydration tube that is routed up to the front of the bicycle and employing a large loop of the hydration tube that is removably attached to the bicycle stem with a hook and loop fastener and further attached with elastic cord. This arrangement disadvantageously creates a bulky, convoluted, and awkward assemblage of components in an area of the bicycle that requires a large degree of rotational freedom of movement during steering and which is already busy with other accessories (e.g.—lights, bicycle computers, etc.), cables, and/or hydraulic lines that are routed to front/rear derailleurs and front/rear brakes.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,788,134 to Matic, Jr. (1998) provides a frame mounted reservoir connected to a flexible hydration tube that is routed up and to the front of the bicycle where it is removably attached to the handlebar with a clasp device. Similar to the above described invention, this arrangement further congests an already busy area of the typical modern bicycle, and leaves a relatively long section of hydration tube unsupported between the last attachment to the bicycle frame and the clasp attachment to the handlebar which while riding over uneven terrain would undergo objectionable motion.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,201,442 to Bakalian (1993) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,301,858 to Hollander (1994) provide a bicycle frame mounted reservoir connected to a flexible hydration tube that is routed on and fixed to the bicycle frame and/or handlebar of the bicycle. These apparatus are thus encumbered with the disadvantages aforementioned for the hands free apparatus described above.
Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 4,095,812 (1978) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,274,566 (1981) to Rowe employ a bicycle frame mounted hydration supply with a connecting the flexible hydration tube that is itself retracted into disadvantageously complex and bulky apparatus that are mounted to the top tube of the bicycle frame.
U.S. Pat. App. No. 20040238549A1 by Murray (2004) describes a multi purpose “packwedge” accessory that mounts inside the main triangle of a conventional bicycle, and relies on a flexible drinking straw to be fixed such that the bicyclist must bend down and find the straw with their mouth, thereby suffering from the same disadvantages as those stated for the “hands free” systems of U.S. Pat. No. 5,062,591 to Runkel (1991) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,953,135 to Litton et al (2005).
Similarly, U.S. Pat. App. No. 20070012740A1 by Montgomery (2007) describes an aerodynamic fluid holder for bicycles that mounts forward of the handlebars and receives one or more fluid packs that rely on a semi-rigid straw to transmit hydration to the rider. Numerous other aerodynamically shaped handlebar mounted water bottle systems are commercially available, for example the Profile Design Aerodrink System and the Revolution Hydration System, however they all suffer from the same disadvantages as those stated for the “hands free” systems of U.S. Pat. No. 5,062,591 to Runkel (1991) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,953,135 to Litton et al (2005).
Several methods and apparatus have been invented to provide pressure assisted delivery of hydration fluids to the cyclist, refer to U.S. Pat. No. 5,062,591 to Runkel (1991), U.S. Pat. No. 5,158,218 to Wery (1992), U.S. Pat. No. 5,201,442 to Bakalian (1993), U.S. Pat. No. 5,326,124 to Allemang (1994), and U.S. Pat. No. 6,454,131 to Champion (2002). While a pressure assisted hydration fluid delivery system may add a level of convenience and/or novelty it is generally not required to enable a cyclist to obtain hydration from a bicycle mounted apparatus. Some bicycle mounted hydration apparatus may have inherently large negative pressure differentials in the hydration fluid path arising from excessive combination of static head pressure and dynamic pressure drop throughout the apparatus. For example, when the hydration source is mounted low on bicycle a large static “head” pressure is created which must be overcome. Dynamic pressure losses in the system increase in proportion to length of hydration tube, the number/size/shape of constrictions and convolutions in the fluidic path. Dynamic pressure loss in the apparatus is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of the inside of the hydration tube. In such cases where excessive pressure drop is present in the system pressurization of the hydration source may be a practicable solution to overcome the cumulative negative pressure, thus making the system more easy to use. Disadvantages of incorporating pressurization to a hydration system include increased complexity, added cost, and increased weight.
The conventional bicycle frame mounted cage and water bottle system, e.g. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,386,721 and 4,441,638 to Shimano (1983 and 1984 respectively), has served cyclists well, and continues to hold sway with the general cycling public, however this approach too has some disadvantages and limitations. First, a cyclist must reach down and grasp a bottle to remove it from a bicycle frame mounted cage. The cyclist must then lift the bottle up above one's head while simultaneously inverting the bottle to direct the valve outlet down and into the mouth while cocking the head up and back so as to contain and subsequently swallow the fluid being ejected or sucked from the bottle. Upon completion of obtaining the some volume of hydration fluid the rider then has to replace the bottle into the frame mounted cage. This complex set of motions clearly has potential to distract or otherwise defocus the riders' attention from the task of maintaining control of the bicycle, and of course the rider is relying on only one hand to control the handlebars of the bicycle for the duration of the drinking process. Secondly, the bottle cage mounted approach is limited in capacity by the volume of water bottle being used multiplied by the number of bottle cage mounts available on the bicycle. A typical example would be a bicycle with two standard bottle cage mounts using large 28 oz bottles (2×28=56 oz), which may be less than that desired and/or required by long distance cyclists. A lack of adequate hydration adversely affects an individual's performance and can lead to dehydration. Thirdly, it is possible for water bottles to inadvertently come free, or eject, from the bicycle mounted cage in cases of extreme accelerations or decelerations such as that commonly encountered while mountain cycling at high speeds over rough terrain. This situation can become dangerous as the free flying mass of the ejected water bottle poses an unexpected safety hazard to the rider and adjacent or subsequent riders over the affected terrain. Additionally, in a race it is unlikely that the rider will stop to retrieve the ejected water bottle due to the adverse affect this activity would have on the riders' position in the race, thereby leaving the rider with an unexpected deficit of hydration fluids and potentially leaving a hazardous obstacle on the race course for subsequent riders to negotiate.
The hydration backpack, e.g.—U.S. Pat. No. 4,526,298 to Boxer (1985) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,803,333 to Fawcett (1998), and hands-free variants thereof, e.g.—U.S. Pat. No. 6,199,729 B1 to Drzymkowski (2001) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,283,344 to Bradley (2001), enables the cyclist to carry adequate hydration and nutrition, as well as other accessories, however the burden of this significant load is taken by the rider directly. Wearing a hydration backpack can cause discomfort from the various shoulder, chest and waist straps employed to transfer and secure the load onto one's body. Further, the cyclists' efficiency and subsequent performance is directly affected by their ability to manage physiological heat production. During extreme physical exertion typified by the competitive cyclist it is highly desirable to dissipate heat away from the body. The hydration backpack, however, effectively insulates the rider from transferring this heat away wherever it is in contact with the cyclists' body. The discomfort and degraded heat management experienced by the rider is further exacerbated by a resulting accumulation of perspiration in the padded materials of a typical backpack and in garments contacting the backpack, adding to the load that the cyclist must bear. For these reasons many competitive and extreme sport cyclists continue to favor the bicycle mounted cage and water bottle, with all of its disadvantages and limitations, over the backpack hydration systems.
Hydration systems relying on a flexible tube to transmit hydration fluid from a remotely located supply can benefit from a quick-disconnect coupling at either end of the tube in order to establish a mechanical and fluidic interface with adjacent components, for example a reservoir or a bite valve. One commonly encountered example of a quick disconnect mechanical and fluidic interface is the barbed fitting. While the barbed fitting is simple and inexpensive, it is not always an easy to execute or robust solution for repeated assembly and disassembly. Another quick-disconnect fluidic coupling to provide component connectivity on a bladder type personal hydration apparatus is described by U.S. Pat. No. 7,073,688 to Choi et al (2006). Additional means for creating quick-disconnect, or make-break, fluidic interfaces on other hydration systems can be found in U.S. Pat. App. No. 20060113336A1 by Spencer (2006), where a shoulder mounted hydration apparatus is fitted with a quick disconnect fluidic interface at the hydration tube inlet, and U.S. Pat App. No. 20040238570A1 by Skillern (2004), where a hydration bladder apparatus employs a quick-disconnect fitting at the bladder outlet.
Other apparatus where the hydration/nutrition/storage pack is styled more as a belt to be worn around the waist have also been developed, for example the product FuelBelt™ and U.S. Pat. No. 6,971,562 to Willows et al (2005). While these systems offer a good overall solution for athletes engaging in running or multiple sports that include running, such as tri-athletes, they suffer from the same disadvantages as the back pack resulting from the user having to bear the burden of the load directly.
The bicycle seat mounted pack is commonly used by cyclists to carry tools, spare parts, additional garments, maps, and nutrition/hydration supplements. Seat and seat post mounted pack inventions have primarily focused on the methods of pack construction, manner of access, and means of attachment to the bicycle. Refer to U.S. Pat. No. 4,442,960 to Vetter (1984), U.S. Pat. No. 4,629,040 to Jones (1986), U.S. Pat. No. 5,127,563 to Chan et al (1992), U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,270 to Rixen et al (1995), U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,496,089 and 5,593,126 to Muderlak (1996 and 1997), U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,694 to Keckeisen (1997), U.S. Pat. No. 5,893,501 to Schwimmer (1999), and U.S. Pat. No. 6,431,422 to Moore (2002). The main disadvantage of using a conventional seat mounted pack for carrying supplemental nutrition and hydration fluids is that they require the cyclist to stop and dismount the bicycle in order to access the contents, which presents a general inconvenience to all cyclist, and a significant disadvantage to competitive cyclists.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,629,040 to Jones (1986), SOFT SADDLE BAG WITH RIGID REINFORCING INSERT, describes the use of a rigid insert to provide shape and structure to a soft luggage shell. This invention has been broadly applied to commercialized bicycle panniers and saddle bags.
Cycling garments adapted with pockets to hold supplemental nutrition and/or hydration suffer from the same comfort and heat dissipation disadvantages as the hydration backpack systems, albeit to a lesser degree. Additionally, garment pockets are typically more limited in capacity than bicycle mounted and backpack systems.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,666,360 to Swank (2003), PERSONAL HYDRATION SYSTEM FOR RUNNERS, employs a retractable “badge” reel device to hold and control a mid-span of flexible hydration tubing on a personal hydration system for runners. The application of this device is specifically human mounted. No prior art relating to the use of a reel with spring retracting string to secure accessories to a bicycle has been found.
Nutritional supplements commonly used by cyclists include prepackaged energy bars and other discrete nutritional elements. A main disadvantage of the aforementioned prepackaged products is that they typically require both hands to open, and are thus difficult to use while continuing to ride a bicycle. Concentrated gel nutritional supplements address this disadvantage by way of being dispensed from a flask which can be carried in a easy to reach pocket and consumed with the aid of only one hand, however the gel itself is inherently messy and not universally preferred or accepted as a preferred medium for nutrition. A further disadvantage of these nutrition systems is that they are susceptible to contamination from handling and external sources once that they are opened.
U.S. Pat. App. No. 20050258201A1 by Willows (2005), describes a bottle retaining device that may be applied to attach various accessory items, including a bottle or nutrition flask, to a bicycle.
No other relevant prior art was found relating to means of dispensing nutrition for bicyclists and other athletes.
As is evidenced by the shortcomings of the prior art herein described, there is a need for a combination hydration, nutrition and pack apparatus for cyclists that is safe and easy to use, and that relieves the related burden from being born directly by the cyclist. There is also a need for a nutrition dispensing device that is safe, easy to operate, clean, convenient to store and carry, and that frees the user from dealing with related packaging at the time of consumption.